Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?

From:

Artur Malabarba

Subject:

Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?

Date:

Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:23:54 +0100

If I may weigh in. I think the whole discussion of whether this should
be symmetric or not is pointless. There are arguments for both sides,
and without any significant amount of empirical evidence, any choice
is as good as flipping a coin.
I'd much rather we focus effort on making the equiv-classes easier to customize.
2015-09-09 3:42 GMT+01:00 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>:
>> From: Juri Linkov <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Ulrich Mueller <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
>> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:20:20 +0300
>>
>> >> (I'd also like it to match "Mueller" but that's a different issue.)
>> >
>> > With this feature, you can.
>>
>> This is not what I see.
>
> This needs customizing the equivalence set.
Yes. Discussing how to expose easy and useful customization to the
user is a much more useful discussio IMO.